j. r. c. cousland the crowds in the gospel of matthew supplements to novum testamentum supplements...

THE CROWDS INTHE GOSPEL OF

MATTHEW

J.R.C. COUSLAND

BRILL

THE CROWDS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

NTS-102 Cousland.vwi 15-10-2001 12:35 Pagina 1

SUPPLEMENTS TO

NOVUM TESTAMENTUM

EDITORIAL BOARD

C.K. BARRETT, Durham - P. BORGEN, TrondheimJ.K. ELLIOTT, Leeds - H. J. DE JONGE, Leiden

A. J. MALHERBE, New HavenM. J. J. MENKEN, Utrecht - J. SMIT SIBINGA, Amsterdam

Executive EditorsM.M. MITCHELL, Chicago & D.P. MOESSNER, Dubuque

VOLUME CII


THE CROWDS INTHE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

BY

J.R.C. COUSLAND

BRILLLEIDEN BOSTON KLN

2002


This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Cousland, J. R. C.:The crowds in the gospel of Matthew / J. R. C. Cousland. Leiden ;Boston ; Kln : Brill, 2001

(Supplements to Novum testamentum ; Vol. 102)Zugl.: St. Andrews, Univ., Diss.ISBN 9004121773

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is also available

ISSN 0167-9732ISBN 90 04 12177 3

Copyright 2002 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written

permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personaluse is granted by Brill provided that

the appropriate fees are paid directly to The CopyrightClearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910

Danvers MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands


Dedicated to the memory of James (Jimmy) William Wishart Thomson

oi( de\ gi/gantej hsan e)pi\ th=j gh=j e)n tai=j h(me/raij e)kei/naij

And to Margaret and all the Thomsons

Cousland 01 versie 4 10-10-2001, 12:525

This page intentionally left blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ...........................................................................................

Abbreviations .................................................................................

:

A The Nature of the Problem .................................................... 3B J. D. Kingsbury ...................................................................... 9C Sjef Van Tilborg ..................................................................... 12D Paul S. Minear ........................................................................ 14E Warren Carter ......................................................................... 16F Anthony Saldarini ................................................................... 18G Summary ................................................................................. 20H Proposal ................................................................................... 21I Presuppositions and Methodology .......................................... 23

:

A Matthews Sources .................................................................. 31B Use of the term oxloj in Matthew ......................................... 35C Singular Crowds? .................................................................... 37D The Distinctiveness of Matthews oxloj ....................................... 39E The Crowds as a Literary Construct ..................................... 43F Conclusion ............................................................................... 50

A The Ethnic Constitution of the Crowds ................................ 53B Matthews Geographical References ...................................... 53C Syria ......................................................................................... 54D The Decapolis ......................................................................... 58E Beyond the Jordan .................................................................. 61F Matthews Geographical Rationale ........................................ 63G Matthew 7:29 .......................................................................... 68H Israel and the Crowds ............................................................. 70I Conclusion ............................................................................... 72

Cousland 01 versie 4 10-10-2001, 12:527

A The Relation of the Crowds to Israel .................................... 75B oxloj and lao/j ......................................................................... 75C The Crowds as Sheep ............................................................. 86D Conclusion ............................................................................... 97

: ....................................................................... 97

:

A Jesus Ministry to the Crowds ................................................ 101B The Character of the Ministry ............................................... 101C khru/ssw .................................................................................................. 102D dida/skw ................................................................................................... 103E qerapeu/w ................................................................................................ 108F Feeding .................................................................................... 117G Jesus Shepherding of the Sheep ........................................... 120H Conclusion ............................................................................... 122

A The Response of the Crowds to Jesus ................................... 125B e)kplh/ssomai ........................................................................................... 126C qauma/zw .................................................................................................. 129D e)ci/sthmi .................................................................................................. 130E fobe/omai ................................................................................................. 130F doca/zw ..................................................................................................... 132G The Responses of the Crowds in Oratio Recta .......................... 136H Matthews Use of the Responses ............................................ 140I Conclusion ............................................................................... 143

A a)kolouqe/w .............................................................................................. 145B The Crowds and the Demands of Jesus ................................ 148C The Call of Jesus ..................................................................... 153D Discipleship in Matthew ......................................................... 154E Jesus Summons of Individual Disciples ................................ 156F Comfortable Words ................................................................ 159G Following and Miracles ........................................................... 163H Sheep and Shepherd ............................................................... 169I Conclusion ............................................................................... 172

Cousland 01 versie 4 10-10-2001, 12:528

A A Son of David? ...................................................................... 175B Son of David as a Messianic Title? ........................................ 176C The Royal Son of David ........................................................ 181D The Therapeutic Son of David .............................................. 184E The Crowds and the Son of David........................................ 191F The Son of David and the Lord ............................................ 195G Conclusion ............................................................................... 198

: ...................................................................... 201

:

A Prophet .................................................................................... 207B The Eschatological Prophet .................................................... 208C The Eschatological Prophet at 21:11? ................................... 213D The Violent Fate of the Prophets .......................................... 217E The Crowds and Jesus the Prophet ....................................... 222F Conclusion ............................................................................... 225

A The Volte-Face of the Crowds .................................................. 227B The Crowds in the Barabbas Episode (27:15-26) .................. 231C The Crowds after the Passion ................................................ 237D Conclusion ............................................................................... 239

A Matthew Chapter 13 .............................................................. 241B The Crowds and the Great Discourses .................................. 241C The Portrait of the Crowds in Chapter 13............................ 247D Parables ................................................................................... 249E Matthew 13:10-18 ................................................................... 252F Matthew 13:18-23 ................................................................... 256G Matthew 13 in the Context of Matthews Narrative ............. 257H Conclusion ............................................................................... 259

: ...................................................................... 261

:

A Historicized Groups in Matthew? .......................................... 265B The Transparent Crowds ....................................................... 270

Cousland 01 versie 4 10-10-2001, 12:529

C Matthews Dual Economy ...................................................... 281D The Function of Matthews Narrative of the Crowds ........... 288E Matthews Sitz-im-Leben .............................................................. 294F Conclusion ............................................................................... 296

: ....................................................................... 299

: .................. 301

: ................................ 305

:

A Reference Works ..................................................................... 309B Commentaries on Matthew .................................................... 310C Monographs and Essays ......................................................... 311

:

Index of References ...................................................................... 333Index of Authors ........................................................................... 351Index of Subjects ........................................................................... 357

Cousland 01 versie 4 10-10-2001, 12:5210

PREFACE

This book had its genesis as a doctoral thesis at the University of St.Andrews, written under the supervision of Professor Ronald Piper.Since completed the thesis, however, my views about the characterand role of the crowds have evolved considerably, and the presentwork offers quite a different assessment from that presented in thedissertation.

My central contention is that Matthews crowds represent the peo-ple of Israel as distinguished from their leaders. The gospel crowdsemerge as a theological entity, and the bulk of the book examinesthem from that perspective. I conclude that while Matthew has cat-egorically broken with the leadership of formative Judaism, he hasnot fully severed his ties with the Jewish people, and still entertainsthe prospect of their conversion. It is my hope that the analysis andconclusions offered here will contribute a fresh perspective to theperennial problem of Matthews relationship to the Judaism of hisday.

As this problem continues to be one of the most contentious fea-tures of the so-called Matthean renaissance, I have tried to takeaccount of recent discussion as much as possible. Unfortunately, I didnot become aware of Martin Meisers fine study, Die Reaktion des Volkesauf Jesus, until after I had submitted the book for publication.1 It isencouraging to find, however, that we agree in a number of essen-tials, even if (inevitably!) not in every respect.

Over the course of writing the dissertation and this book I havehad cause to be thankful to a great many people. My family Anne,Ian, Irene and Alastair have provided sustained encouragement andsupport over the years, for which I am especially grateful. Ron Piperscharacteristic insight added much to the dissertation, and in its pro-duction I owe a very great deal to the unstinting help of HughScheuermann, as well as to David Whelan, David Leman and BoyneHill.

In writing the book, I have particularly profited from the percipi-ent advice of James Hume, and I also need to thank Phillip Harding,

1 Martin Meiser, Die Reaktion des Volkes auf Jesus. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchungzu den synoptischen Evangelien (BZNW 96; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1998). For hisdiscussion of Matthew, see especially pp.223-61.

Cousland 01 versie 4 10-10-2001, 12:5211

Christopher Beall and Alan Rawn for their careful reading of the MSand the valuable suggestions they offered. I must also thank my col-leagues and the support staff at both the University of Calgary andthe University of British Columbia for their ongoing help and encour-agement.

Last of all, I need to thank the Thomsons, who made me so mucha part of their family when I lived in Scotland; it is to them that thisbook is dedicated with love and affection.

Cousland 01 versie 4 10-10-2001, 12:5212

ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations conform to those in Patrick H. Alexander et al.(eds.), The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, MA., 1999), with the addi-tion of the following abbreviations. Unless otherwise indicated, cita-tions of classical authors are from the Loeb Classical Library (LCL),citations of the Mishnah from H. Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford, 1933),citations of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Michael Wise, Martin AbeggJr. and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (SanFrancisco, 1996), citations of the pseudepigrapha from J. Charles-worth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City,1982) and the Babylonian Talmud from the Soncino Edition (Lon-don, 1952).

DA W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, The Gospel According to St.Matthew I-III (1988-1997)

EWNT Exegetisches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament I-III (1981-83)HJP Emil Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus

Christ (175 BC-AD 135) I-III/1-2 (rev. and ed. G. Vermeset al., 1973-87)

Cousland 01 versie 4 10-10-2001, 12:5213

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:411

CHAPTER ONE

A The Nature of the Problem

Almost 1750 years ago Origen devoted a section of his Commentarius inMatthaeum1 to a discussion of the different roles played by the disciplesand the crowds in the Gospel of Matthew.2 Although Origen did notgo on to dilate in detail upon these differences except in aspiritualized sense, his distinction between the two groups remains acharacteristically insightful one and raises some questions that havenot, as of yet, been definitively resolved. Why is it that Matthewdifferentiates between the two groups? Who are the crowds, and whatrole do they have in the Gospel of Matthew? And why has Matthewaccorded a prominent place in his gospel to such apparently minorcharacters?

The intention of this study is to answer precisely these questions. Itwill identify the crowds and explain their role and function within thegospel. In so doing, it will demonstrate that the crowds are, in fact,not a minor character, but rather are emblematic of the people ofIsrael as distinct from their leaders. This identification accounts fortheir prominence within the gospel. To my knowledge, the thesisstated above has not been argued before. Nor has a full-length exam-ination of the crowds been undertaken before, and one is long over-due. The crowds in Matthew have been very largely overlooked bybiblical scholars. The following study, therefore, is an attempt toredress this oversight.

Ironically, part of this oversight can probably be attributed to therise of New Testament scholarship over the last century. AfterMatthews erstwhile primacy in the Christian tradition, the two-docu-ment hypothesis gave Mark a certain ascendancy. As a consequence,Matthews crowds have come to be read largely through a Markanlens. Since the crowd(s) feature in many of the same episodes in the

1 Origen, Commentarius in Matthaeum, XI.4-5.2 Since the plural form of o xlojcrowdsis found more frequently in Mat-

thews gospel, this study will use it throughout for the sake of consistency. The nameMatthew is used in what follows as a convenient designation for the author, with-out making any claims as to his or her identity. Scriptural passages cited with onlychapter and verse are from the Gospel of Matthew. The Appendix at the end of thiswork includes every verse in Matthew that makes specific reference to the crowds(oxloj). The justification for assuming the crowds to be synonymous with the termoxloj/oi will be provided in Chapters Two and Four below.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:413

two gospels, it has been natural to suppose that Matthew has simplyappropriated the crowd from Mark wholesale, just as he has adoptedso much else.3 Because the crowd in Mark has a relatively minor role,the same assumption has been made of the crowds in Matthew.4

Even when the crowds have commanded the attention of scholars,it is safe to say that no consensus has emerged concerning their placein the gospel. Rather, the reverse is true: the spectrum of opinionsabout the crowds role, character and function is exceptionallydiverse, as even a brief, representative sampling of opinion shouldmake evident. To Vincent Mora, for example, the crowds assume anenormous role in the gospel.5 To Georg Strecker, by contrast, thecrowds constitute nothing more than a laudatory backdrop to theministry of Jesus.6 For Donald Verseput, the crowds arehistoricizedwrapped in a cloak of unrepeatability,7 and denoteonly the Jews of Jesus own day. Yet, for Joseph Comber, the crowds

3 On the place of the crowd in the Gospel of Mark see: Ernest Best, The Role ofthe Disciples in Mark, NTS 23 (1977) 390-393; Elizabeth Struthers Malbon,Disciples/Crowds/Whoever: Marcan Characters and Readers, NovT 28 (1986)104-130; Paul S. Minear, Audience Criticism and Marcan Ecclesiology in H.Baltensweiler and B. Reicke (eds.), Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historische Geschehenund Deutung im Neuen Testament (Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972) 79-90; A. W.Mosley, Jesus Audiences in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, NTS 10 (1964)139-149; David Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narra-tive of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 134-135; Kenzo Tagawa, Miracles etvangile: La pense personelle de lvangliste Marc (Etudes dHistoire et de PhilosophieReligieuses 62; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966) 55-73; C. H. Turner,Notes, 225-240; Osmar Zizemer: Das Verhltnis zwischen Jesus und Volk imMarkusevangelium (Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwrde der Evangelisch-Theologischen Fakultt der Ludwig-Maximilians Universitt Munich, 1983).

4 The same assumption has not been made for the role of the disciples inMatthew simply because it is evident that they are not minor characters. As a result,they continue to garner a fair amount of attention. See, for two recent examples,Richard A. Edwards, Matthews Narrative Portrait of Disciples: How the Text-ConnotedReader is Informed (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997) and Michael J.Wilkens, Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthews Gospel (2nd Ed.; Grand Rapids:Baker, 1995).

5 Vincent Mora, Le Refus dIsral: Matthieu 27, 25 (LD 124; Paris: Editions du Cerf,1986) 135.

6 Georg Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthus (3.Auf.; FRLANT 82; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 107. AlexanderSand (Das Matthus-Evangelium [Ertrge der Forschung 275; Darmstadt: Wissenschaft-liche Buchgesellschaft, 1991] 79) is of a similar opinion: oxloj in Matthew is keintheologisch relevanter Begriff.

7 Donald J. Verseput, The Rejection of the Humble Messianic King: A Study of the Com-position of Matthew 11-12 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1986) 48. See, too, David E. Gar-land, The Intention of Matthew 23 (NovTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 38-39.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:414

of the gospel narrative are a cipher for the Jewish people of Mat-thews time.8 Robert Gundry agrees with Comber that they reflectthe realities of Matthews day, but maintains that they are not Jewish,rather, the masses in the Church...the result of extensive evangelismamong the Gentiles.9

The same lack of concord is evident in literary evaluations of thecrowds as characters in the gospel. J. D. Kingsbury claims that,the crowds...may be dealt with as a single, flat character. They arenot rich in traits, and the ones they possess tend not to change untilthe end of Matthews story, when they suddenly appear with Judas toarrest Jesus.10 Clifton Black, however, insists that the crowds beregarded as rather round characters: albeit [sic] their minimalistrepresentation, they are rather lifelike in their unpredictablevacillation and divided loyalty to Jesus.11

In short, there is no agreement among these scholars about thecrowds in Matthews gospel. According to these scholarsand theirjudgements are not unrepresentativethe crowds could be Jewish orgentile, historicized or transparent,12 and important or relativelyminor figures within the gospel framework. While a broad spectrumof opinion is not uncommon within New Testament scholarship, thecase of the crowds, with their chameleon-like capacity to fit a varietyof interpretations, is out of the ordinary.

The reasons for such a multiplicity of interpretations are notdifficult to isolate. Pre-eminent is the fact that the crowds have usually

8 Joseph A. Comber, The Verb Therapeu in Matthews Gospel, JBL 97 (1978)433.

9 Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 64-65, cf. 8-9. Hans Dieter Betz (The Sermon on theMount [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995] 81) similarly describes the crowds asthe pool from which new church members are to be recruited, but does not specifywhether he regards these prospective converts as Jews or Gentiles.

10 Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (2nd Ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 24.11 C. Clifton Black II, Depth of Characterization and Degrees of Faith in Mat-

thew, SBL 1989 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 619. According toKingsbury (Story, 10, and cf. Black, Depth, 605), Round characters are thosewho possess a variety of traits, some of which may even conflict, so that their behav-iour is not necessarily predictable; round characters are like real people....Flatcharacters are those who possess few traits and are therefore highly predictable intheir behaviour.

12 For the expression transparent, see Ulrich Luz, The Disciples in the Gospelaccording to Matthew in G. Stanton (ed.), The Interpretation of Matthew (London:SPCK, 1983) 98. The term transparent refers to elements in the gospel accountthat can be understood as allusions to the post-Easter situation of Matthews com-munity. See, further, the illuminating remarks by Gerhard Lohfink, Wem gilt dieBergpredigt?, TQ 163 (1983) 266#13.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:415

been considered en passant. In Matthean scholarship, discussion of thecrowds has been made ancillary to other questions because thecrowds have generally been regarded, like their Markan counterparts,as marginal figures. An examination of the amount of space usuallyaccorded to them in recent works on Matthew shows that they areoften dispensed with in three to four pages at most.13 And, as these

13 See inter alia: Fred W. Burnett, The Testament of Jesus-Sophia: A Redaction-CriticalStudy of the Eschatological Discourse in Matthew (Washington: University Press of America,1981) 404-411; Bernhard Citron, The Multitude in the Synoptic Gospels, SJT 7(1954) 408-18; B. R. Doyle, Crowds in Matthew: Texts and Theology, CatholicTheological Review 6 (1984) 28-33; Georg Eichholz, Auslegung der Bergpredigt (3. Auf.;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 1965) 22-24; R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist andTeacher (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989) 225-27; Garland, Intention, 34-41, 210-215;James M. Gibbs, Purpose and Pattern in Matthews Use of the Title Son ofDavid, NTS 10 (1964) passim; Ulrich Hedinger, Jesus und die Volksmenge, TZ 32(1976) 201-206; P. Jouon, )OXLOS au sens de Peuple, Population dans le Grec duNouveau Testament et dans la Lettre dAriste, RSR 27 (1937) 618-619; Terence J.Keegan, Introductory Formulae for Matthean Discourses, CBQ 44 (1982) 425-428;Klaus-Stefan Krieger, Das Publikum der Bergpredigt (Mt 4, 23-25). Ein Beitrage zuder Frage: Wem gilt die Bergpredigt?, Kairos 28 (1986) 107-9; David D. Kupp,Matthews Emmanuel. Divine Presence and Gods People in the First Gospel (SNTSMS 90;Cambridge: University Press, 1996) 67-69; Xavier Leon-Dufour, Etudes dEvangile(Parole de Dieu; Paris: Le Seuil, 1965) 236-238; Richard E. Menninger, Israel and theChurch in the Gospel of Matthew (New York: Peter Lang, 1994) 6-8; Paul S. Minear,False Prophecy and Hypocrisy in the Gospel of Matthew in Joachim Gnilka (ed.),Neues Testament und Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 78-79; V. Mora, Refus, 135-40;Akira Ogawa, Lhistoire de Jsus chez Matthieu: La signification de lhistoire pour la thologieMatthenne (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1979) 215-222; E. A. Russell, The Image of theJew in Matthews Gospel, SE VII=TU 126 (1982) 428-442; Wolfgang Schenk, DieSprache des Matthus: Die Texte-Konstituenten in ihren makro- und mikrostructurellen Relationen(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987) 349-52; Graham Stanton, RevisitingMatthews Communities, SBL 1994 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994)14-16; Georg Strecker, Weg, 106-107, 116, 268#3; Kari Syreeni, The Making of theSermon on the Mount (Pt.1 Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. DissertationesHumanarum Litterarum 44; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987) 111-12,122-4; Raymond Thysman, Communaut et directives ethiques: La catchse de Matthieu.Recherches et synthses: Exgse 1 (Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1974) 19-23; Wolfgang Trilling,Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthus-Evangeliums (3. Auf.; SANT 10;Munich: Ksel-Verlag, 1964) 72, 75-76; C. H. Turner, Notes and Studies: MarcanUsage: Notes Critical and Exegetical on the Second Gospel, Continued, Pt.V. TheMovements of Jesus and his disciples and the crowd, JTS 26 (1925) 225-240; D. J.Verseput, Rejection, 46-48; Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 50. To the above list should be appended thevarious commentaries on Matthew at 4:25, passim, and the following dictionaryarticles: Horst Balz, oxloj Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (hereafter EDNT)II 553-54; Hans Bietenhard, People, New International Dictionary of New TestamentTheology (hereafter NIDNTT ) II 800-1; Rudolf Meyer, oxloj Theological Dictionary ofthe New Testament (hereafter TDNT ) V 582-90; D. F. Watson, People, Crowd in theDictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel Green et al. (Downers Grove: InterVarsityPress, 1992) 605-9.

On the place of the crowds in Luke see: Richard Ascough, Narrative Technique

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:416

evaluations of the crowds are, not untypically, subordinated to largerissues, be they Matthews view of Heilsgeschichte, or his community, it ishardly unexpected that the perspectives taken on these larger issuesshould frequently have coloured the perceptions of the crowds. Apartfrom a few longer treatments of the crowds, which will be discussedpresently, there has been no full-scale analysis of the crowds inMatthews gospel.

A second reason for such a variety of interpretations is simply thatMatthews depiction of the crowds is decidedly protean. At the root ofhis portrayal is what can only be described as a fundamental ambival-ence or ambiguity, which makes it far from clear how the role of thecrowds is to be construed.14 While this ambivalence is, in somemeasure, characteristic of the crowds in all of the canonical gospels, itis particularly pronounced in Matthew. The crowds can readily beinterpreted both positively and negatively. On the one hand, it is easyto cast them in a favourable light.15 They generally appear well dis-

and Generic Designation: Crowd Scenes in Luke-Acts and in Chariton, CBQ 58(1996) 69-81; Hans Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (5.Auf.; BHT 17; Tbingen: Mohr, 1964) 152-153#1; Paul S. Minear, Jesus Audi-ences According to Luke, NovT 16 (1974) 81-109; David P. Moessner, Lord of theBanquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1989) 212-18; A. W. Mosley, Jesus Audiences, 139-149; R. Tannehill,The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, Vol. I (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 143-66; J. B.Tyson, The Jewish Public in Luke-Acts, NTS 30 (1984) 574-83; Paul Zingg, DasWachsen der Kirche (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 61-63.

14 The word ambivalence was first employed by James M. Gibbs (The Son ofGod as Torah Incarnate in Matthew, SE IV=TU 102 (1968) 45#5). Gibbs obser-vation has since been echoed by a number of studies: Warren Carter, The Crowdsin Matthews Gospel, CBQ 55 (1993) 58; Terence L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Moun-tain: A Study in Matthean Theology (JSNTSup 8; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 114; J.Murphy-OConnor, The Structure of Mt XIVXVII, RB 82 (1975) 376#44;Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthews Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1994) 43; and most recently, Evert-Jan Vledder, Conflict in the MiracleStories: A Socio-Exegetical Study of Matthew 8 and 9 (JSNTSup 152. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1997) 232. Horst Balz (oxloj, 554) uses the term double-mindedness (DoppelgesichtigkeitExegetisches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament[Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1981] II col. 1355) of the crowds in all four gospels.Such ambiguity probably originated in the situation of the historical Jesus, wherecrowds likely figured both in his ministry and in his arrest and trial.

15 Favourable and unfavourable are used evaluatively here and elsewhere todescribe the crowds relation to Jesus. It is safe to assume that, within the frameworkof the gospel, acceptance of Jesus is construed as a favourable response, and rejectionof him a negative response. Cf. R. Alan Culpepper (Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Studyin Literary Design [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983] 104), whose remarks about Johnsgospel are equally apropos for Matthew: In Johns narrative world the individualityof all the characters except Jesus is determined by their encounter with Jesus. Seefurther, J. D. Kingsbury, The Rhetoric of Comprehension in the Gospel ofMatthew, NTS 41 (1995) 364-67.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:417

posed toward Jesus. They are astonished at his words and deeds(7:28; 9:33; 12:23; 15:31; 22:33). They follow him (4:25; 8:1; 12:15;14:13; 19:2; 20:29; 21:9), and acclaim him as a prophet (21:11; cf.21:46), and, more importantly, as the Son of David (21:9; cf. 12:23).Yet, the crowds can just as readily be portrayed unfavourably. Theyare described by Jesus in chapter 13 as being devoid of understanding(13:10-17). More tellingly, it is they who come later in the gospel toarrest Jesus (26:47), and ultimately join with their leaders in acceptingresponsibility for his death (27:24-25).

These Jekyll and Hyde features sit together uneasily inMatthews gospel. If the crowds are indeed devoid of understandingat chapter 13, what is to be made of their confession of Jesus as theSon of David during the Triumphal Entry (21:9)? And why shouldtheir fundamental insight into Jesus identity then be followed by acomplete volte-face, where they take up with their malign leaders andreject him? Such questions are not resolved easily, and the solutionthat has generally prevailed has been to accentuate either the crowdsfavourable or unfavourable traits to the exclusion of the others.16 Onoccasion, the crowds are also described as being neutral, but this isa solution only in name, and its proponents usually forbear to sayprecisely how the crowds are neutral.17

A factor that has further compounded the problem has been thetendency for some scholars to interpret the role of the crowds in lightof Matthews contemporary situation, after paying only cursory atten-tion to the crowds role at the historical or narrative level of thegospel.18 It is obvious that such an imbalanced methodology is goingto produce skewed resultssomething that may help to explain why

16 One exception is the suggestive article by Luise SchottroffDas geschundeneVolk und die Arbeit in der Ernte Gottes nach dem Matthusevangeliums in L. andW. Schottroff, Mitarbeiter der Schpfung (Munich: Kaiser, 1983) 155.

17 Wilkens (Discipleship, 229-30) gives an indication of the difficulties inherent inthis approach when he asserts in the same sentence that the crowds are basicallyneutral but at various times either positively or negatively oriented towards him[sc. Jesus]. Cf., further, Robert Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation forUnderstanding (Waco: Word, 1982) 59 and Krieger, Publikum, 108, who both alsodescribe the crowds as neutral.

18 By historical I do not refer to a factual relation of events (Von Rankes historyas it actually happened), but to Matthews relation of events, with i(stori/a under-stood in the sense of story or narrative. Cf. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scottand Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edition with a revised supplement(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), s.v. def. II. (hereafter LSJ). That being said, Iwould agree with Grard Genette (Fiction & Diction [Ithaca/London: Cornell Univer-sity Press, 1993] 82) that the two regimes [sc. fiction and nonfiction] are not as farapartas might be supposed from a distance. The historical level then, refers toMatthews story of Jesus as opposed to the transparent level, which would refer to

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:418

the contemporary crowds have been identified both as the Jews ofMatthews own day, and as gentile members of Matthews com-munity.

Unfortunately, the above difficulties beset even the most influentialand extensive studies that have been made of the crowds thus far,those undertaken by J. D. Kingsbury,19 S. Van Tilborg,20 PaulMinear,21 Warren Carter,22 and Anthony Saldarini.23 A brief over-view of their findings will make this apparent.

B J. D. Kingsbury

One of the most influential analyses of the crowds has been that of J.D. Kingsbury in The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in RedactionCriticism.24 His work argues that the function of Chapter 13 withinthe groundplan of Matthews Gospel is to signal the great turningpoint, where Jesus turns away from the Jews (including thecrowds) to his disciples.25 The turning point follows upon Matthewsaccount of Jesus public ministry (Chapters 4-11) and the increasinganimosity with which it is greeted by the Jews (Chapters 11-12). Inchapter 13 Jesus turns away from them, and decries them as being a

the post-Easter situation of Matthews church. In using the word level, I followRaymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (London: Geoffrey Chapman,1984) 125.

19 Jack D. Kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction Criticism(London: SPCK, 1969).

20 Sjef Van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972).21 Paul S. Minear, The Disciples and the Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew,

AThR Sup. 3 (1974) 28-44.22 Carter, Crowds, 54-67.23 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 37-40, 230-32 and idem, Boundaries and

Polemics in the Gospel of Matthew, Biblical Interpretation 3 (1995) 247. SaldarinisessayThe Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict in David L. Balch(ed.), Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1991) 38-61is also pertinent.

24 Kingsbury, Parables, 22-92, especially 24-28. Kingsburys argument has hada considerable impact on Matthean studies. Most recently, Donald Hagner(Matthews Parables of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:1-52) in R. N. Longenecker (ed.),The Challenge of Jesus Parables [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 122) echoesKingsburys argument that Matthew 13 is a major turning point in the ministry ofJesus. Kingsburys study is also quoted with approval by Comber, Verb, 431;John Drury, The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory (New York: Crossroad, 1985)83; David B. Howell, Matthews Inclusive Story: A Study in the Narrative Rhetoric of the FirstGospel ( JSNTSup 42; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) 141#2; T. J.Keegan, Formulae, 423-24, and Dan O. Via, Jr., Self-Deception and Wholeness in Pauland Matthew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 100, among others.

25 Kingsbury, Parables, 130.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:419

people devoid of understanding. From this point onward he no longerspeaks to them openly, but enigmatically in parables. By contrast, hespeaks openly to his disciples, the true people of God.26

The crowds are an essential component of Kingsburys schema.They, along with the Jewish leaders, comprise the Jews. Accordingto Kingsbury, Jesus attitude toward the crowds undergoes a markedchange after chapter 13; Jesus is no longer described as preachingto them or teaching them after this turning point. The introductionof the word parabolh/ in chapter 13, and its frequency thereafter,indicate a deliberate shift to enigmatic speech. Kingsbury furtherclaims that Matthews use of the word au)toi=j as a terminus technicus forthe crowds also suggests that they are outside of the realm of sal-vation.

In spite of these features, Kingsbury does recognize that Matthewdistinguishes the crowds from their leaders, even in the PassionAccount.27 He maintains that Matthew is fundamentally well-disposed towards them, especially as he depicts the crowds assharing directly in the ministry of Jesus.28 Nevertheless, because thecrowds do not belong to the Christian Church, they are to be associ-ated with their leaders.29

Kingsburys argument is effective, cogent and neatperhaps tooneat. The method he employs for defining the crowds is particularlyproblematic because, in effect, he defines them into perdition. As wasjust pointed out, Kingsbury acknowledges that Matthew distinguishesthe crowds from their leaders, yet he refuses to treat them as distinctentities. The antipathy he remarks in Matthew 11 and 12, whichprecipitates the turning point, comes largely from the Jewish lead-ers and not from the crowds, whose attitude is throughout the twochapters expressly contrasted with that of their leaders (cf. 12:22-24).30 Nevertheless, Kingsbury conjoins the two groups, designatingthem as the Jews. The designation is presupposed throughout hisstudy without any explicit warrant, except for his observation that:

As it stands, it [sc. this portrayal of the crowds] appears to contradictour findings in chapter 2, where we stated that the crowds in 13.1-35

26 Kingsbury, Parables, 16, 130.27 Kingsbury, Parables, 25-26.28 Kingsbury, Parables, 26-27.29 Kingsbury, Parables, 28.30 Jean Miler (Les Citations daccomplissement dans lvangile de Matthieu [Analecta

Biblica 140; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1999] 170#18) observes thatthe consistency in the gospels depiction of the crowds makes Kingsburys suppositionimplausible.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4110

represent the whole of unbelieving Judaism and that Jesus speech inparables to them is essentially a scathing apology provoked by the Jewsrejection of him. But this apparent contradiction resolves itself when weobserve that what Matthew in reality does in 13.1-35 is to single out anddwell on only one feature of his description of the Jewish crowds: the factthat they stand beyond the pale of the Church.31

Yet, even in these thirty-five verses, Matthew never refers to theJews. Kingsburys usage of the term appears to owe a good deal toJohns gospel, as Matthew only uses 'Ioudaioi once, at 28:15. Here,however, the time frame is different from that of the rest of thegospelkai diefhmisqh o( lo/goj outoj para\ 'Ioudaioij me/xri th=j sh/meron[h(me/raj]. The only other place where the crowds are (apparently)joined with their leaders into a people (lao/j) is at 27:25, thougheven here they are not called the Jews.

At first, however, Kingsburys grouping does not appear overlyincongruous because he interprets the crowds in light of the way theyare characterized in chapter 13:

Previously (chaps. 11-12), Jesus was depicted in conflict with onlyindividual segments of the Jewish nation. Now, however, he faces in thecrowds the whole of unbelieving Judaism. So it is that Jesus in 13.1-35vigorously assails the crowds for being blind, deaf, and without understandingin regard to the things of salvation (cf. 13.10-13)...In association withchapters 11-12, this apology [sc. 13.1-35] represents the reaction of Jesusto his rejection by the Jews on all sides.32

When this passage is considered in detail, however, it does seemincongruous.33 Why should the crowds be equated with the whole ofunbelieving Judaism? Matthew invariably distinguishes them fromthe Jewish leaders until the Passion Account. Up until then, thecrowds, in contrast to their leaders, are largely receptive to Jesus.34Hence, Kingsbury is only able to support his definition by ignoringthose aspects of Matthews narrative that do not accord with hisinterpretation.35

31 Kingsbury, Parables, 27-28.32 Kingsbury, Parables, 16. Italics his.33 E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies (Studying the Synoptic Gospels [London: SCM,

1989] 207), who also single out this passage, suggest that Kingsbury offers an exag-geration in two directions. First, the gospel gives indications of persecution or ex-pected persecution prior to chapters 11-12, and second, the attitude of the crowds toJesus vacillates before and after 12:46.

34 Kingsbury appears to recognize this fact in his later work, Matthew as Story, (3):Until the passion...the crowds are generally well disposed towards Jesus.

35 Sanders and Davies (Studying, 203-20; 221) furnish detailed criticisms ofKingsburys study, arguing that he repeatedly ignores the narrative level ofmeaning.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4111

In fact, it becomes apparent that Kingsburys argument works onlyby conflating the time frames of the historical level of Jesus with thetransparent level of the church. His references to Jews and Judaismmanifestly relate to the time of the church, but are used to buttresswhat is, in fact, an argument about Jesus ministry (i.e., his turningaway from the Jews) at the historical level. This is not to deny thatMatthews situation could have influenced his account of Jesus ac-tions, but Kingsbury approaches the question backwards. Instead ofexamining the historical narrative to determine what it suggestsabout the relation of Matthews community to Judaism, he decides inadvance what that relation is, and then superimposes it uponMatthews story.36 It is for this reason, ultimately, that his turningpoint theory is flawed.

C Sjef Van Tilborg

One study that has emerged with results very different from those ofKingsbury is that by Sjef Van Tilborg: The Jewish Leaders in Matthew.To help to situate the Jewish leadership, Van Tilborg includes discus-sions of the other two groups in the gospel, the disciples and thecrowds. He also explores how these groups interrelate.37 In hisexamination of the crowds relationships with the Jewish leaders, thedisciples, and Jesus, he discovers a range of responses. He finds thatthe oxloi, in contrast with the Jewish leaders, react very positivelyin the appearance of Jesus.38 They approve of Jesus teaching andrecognize how it differs from that of their leaders.39 The disciplesoccupy a special position with respect to the crowds.40 They func-tion not only as exemplars but also as mediators of Jesus to thecrowdsthey bring the oxloi into contact with Jesus.41

For Van Tilborg, Jesus own relationship to the crowds can beconsidered a positive one. Jesus benevolence is manifest in hisspeaking to and feeding of them, as well as in his compassion and

36 Whether Kingsbury ultimately realizes that this is what he is doing is unclear. Inhis Matthew as Story, with its avowed sensitivity to the story of the gospel (1-2), he isstill capable of writing (with reference to 11:2-16:20) that Israels response to his [sc.Jesus] ministry is one of repudiation (77, italics mine). The same view appearsunchanged in idem, Comprehension, 364-67.

37 The disciples are discussed at Leaders, pages 99-141, and the crowds at pages142-65.

38 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 158.39 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 170.40 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 163, 171.41 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 163, 171.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4112

willingness to heal them.42 The crowds, in turn, are astonished byhim, and come to Jesus of their own volition. They obey him and,more significantly, they do the same as the disciples have done: theyfollow Jesus.43 Their following of Jesus is central to Van Tilborgsdepiction of the crowds, because the following of Jesus is the defini-tion of the essence of being Christian....The oxloi do what they havebeen asked to do by Jesus.44

Van Tilborg goes on to interpret the favourable depiction of thecrowds in light of Matthews contemporary situation:

Presumably in Mts time Christs message did not yet meet with any greatresistance. Mt sees how many people have been called to accept Jesusand his doctrine. On the basis of his own actual experiences he believesthat also when Jesus was still alive great crowds accepted him. Thishas become an argument in his eyes to summon others to a similaracceptance.45

The crowds in Matthew, therefore, are a retrojection of the laterexperience of the community, a cipher for the converts in his church.

While it is marked by keen insightsespecially his consideration ofthe crowds in relation to the other characters in Matthews gospelVan Tilborgs analysis is wanting in other respects. His assumption,for instance, that the great crowds mentioned in the narrativebecome adherents of Jesus is, ultimately, rather tenuous. He claimsthat the crowds are asked by Jesus to follow him, but the gospeldoes not really bear out his contention.46 In fact, there are stronggrounds for supposing that Matthew has Jesus refrain from summon-ing the crowds to follow him.

A related problem is Van Tilborgs inability to account for theambiguity in Matthews depiction of the crowds. Matthews gospelundoubtedly presents the crowds in a favourable light, and thesefeatures are well brought out by Van Tilborg. Yet, he is less successfulwith the negative traits of the crowds, as instanced by chapter 13 andthe Passion Account (27:20-25). In both of these passages, VanTilborg does recognize Matthews editorial activity, but attempts tominimize the discordancies.47 With respect to chapter 13, for exam-ple, he candidly admits that the relationship between the crowds and

42 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 164, 171.43 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 164.44 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 164.45 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 171.46 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 164.47 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 159; 148-149 (on Matt 27:20) and 161-162 (on ch. 13).

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4113

the secret-theme taken over from Mark is obscure to him.48 He is alsounable to argue convincingly that Matthews negative charac-terization of the crowd in the Passion Narrative, particularly 27:20-25is determined by pre-Matthean tradition.49 Thus, his study, althoughit offers an effective counterbalance to Kingsbury, tends to overlookthe negative features of the crowds.

D Paul S. Minear

The essay that pioneered discussion of Matthews crowds in their ownright is Paul Minears The Disciples and the Crowds in the Gospelof Matthew.50 Minear begins by drawing a number of provisionalconclusions, the first of which holds that far from being an amor-phous and neutral category, the ochloi played a highly positive role asfollowers of Jesus.51 He suggests that the crowds constitute a majorobjective of Jesus ministry, and that the disciples are especially en-joined to continue the crowd-oriented ministry. Minear notes that thequestion of the crowds allegiance forms the basis for the conflictbetween Jesus and his adversaries.52 He corroborates part of hisportrayal by examining the crowds in relation to the five greatdiscourses in Matthew,53 concluding that the crowds surelycorresponded to the laymen of Matthews day, while the disciplescorresponded to the Christian leaders.54 In exercising their obligationto care for the laymen, these leaders fulfilled the ministry that Jesushad entrusted to his disciples. Thus, when the modern reader findsJesus speaking to the crowds, he may usually assume that Matthew

48 Van Tilborg (Leaders, 161) remarks that Matthew also borrows from Mark thesecret-theme and he has strongly elaborated this theme by altering the i( /na of Mark 4,12 into the o( /ti of Matthew 13, 13. How this theme should be fitted into the whole ofMatthews concept remains obscure to me, unless the changes in Matthew 13, 10.13are to be attributed to a pre-Matthean tradition.

49 See the detailed critique of Van Tilborgs position by F. W. Burnett, (Testament,405-409).

50 Minears study, given its specific focus, is usually treated as one of the standarddiscussions of the crowds. It is cited, for example, in G. Stantons extensive survey ofMatthean scholarshipThe Origin and Purpose of Matthews Gospel: MattheanScholarship from 1945 to 1980 in W. Haase (ed.), Auftstieg und Niedergang derRmischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Principat (Berlin:Walter de Gruyter, 1985) II 25.3, 1928 (hereafter ANRW).

51 Minear, Crowds, 31.52 Minear, Crowds, 31-32.53 Minear (Crowds, 32) finds that the crowds appear in either the introduction

or the conclusion of all five sermons attributed to Jesus, and that in two sermonsthey form part of his audience (13:1f.; 23:1f.).

54 Minear, Crowds, 41.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4114

was speaking to contemporary laymen. When he finds Jesus teachingthe disciples, he may usually suppose that Matthew had in mindthe vocation of contemporary leaders as stewards of Christshousehold.55

The difficulty with Minears position is that he tends to assume thevery thing he ought to provenamely, the highly favourabledisposition of the crowds. This is not to deny the crowds receptivityto Jesus, but Minears inferences frequently go considerably beyondthe evidence. He contends, for instance, that it is not an exaggera-tion to speak of the crowds as worshipping Jesus yet, he neverjustifies his contention.56 Minear simply assumes that since theeditor does not show an interest in depicting the steps by which thecrowds moved from less to greater faith, we infer that to Matthew theochloi were characterized from the beginning by their acceptance ofJesus message and his authority as prophet of God.57

Minears summation again makes unwarranted assumptions. Hespeaks here of faith and sees it represented at 8:2 by the words andactions of the leper. It is evident from the lepers remarkLord, ifyou will, you can make me clean (8:3)that he does have faith, butis Minear warranted to assume on that basis that the crowds havefaith, especially when it is never said explicitly of them elsewhere?The proselqwn at 8:2 is ambiguous. Does the leper actually emergefrom the crowds? Mosaic law speaks against such practice (Lev 13:45-46).

Further, Minear talks of the crowds acceptance of Jesus mes-sage and his authority as prophet of God58 yet, the descriptions ofthe crowds do not bear out these observations. Certainly the crowdsreact to Jesus messagethey are astonished by it and they glorifyGod for giving such authority to men (7:28, 22:33, 9:8)but they arenever expressly depicted as accepting his message. That there is aconsiderable difference in Matthew between the recognition of Jesusauthority and message, and the acceptance of it is made evident bythe pericope of the rich young man (19:16-30). Minear, for his part,assumes that this acceptance entails at least a modicum of obligationto act in accordance with his disclosure of Gods will.59 It may wellbe so, but the gospel does not give us any indication that the crowds

55 Minear, Crowds, 41.56 Minear, Crowds, 30.57 Minear, Crowds, 30.58 Minear, Crowds, 30.59 Minear, Crowds, 30.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4115

did in fact assume this obligation. If anything, it intimates that theydid not (12:46-50).

Minear, like Van Tilborg, also fails to account for the crowdsnegative portrayal in chapter 13 and the Passion Narrative. He toomakes an appeal to the substrate of Mark in chapter 13, though hismain argument is to suggest that ochloi had not by Matthews daybecome a technical term to which a very specific ecclesiological con-tent adhered.60 Yet, ifas Minear acknowledgesMatthew is usingthe word in what is virtually a technical sense for all Jesus publicministry, why should it not be specific in chapter 13 as well?

Finally, Minears assumption about the role of the crowds inMatthews community is poorly substantiated.61 He asserts that tothe degree that these stories [sc. the feeding narratives] were intendedby Matthew to mirror later Eucharists to that same degree the ochloirepresent the laity in those later gatherings.62 He begs the question,but he does not answer it. Minears identification also sidesteps thecrowds negative features. Most notably, how is his view of the laity tobe reconciled with the intensification of the crowds guilt evident at27:24-25?63 This difficulty, as with the others mentioned above,reveals deficiencies in Minears assessment of the crowds.

E Warren Carter

The recent essay by Warren Carter is salutary in that it remediessome of the deficiencies of previous studies, particularly their ten-dency to impose a single role on the crowds. Fundamental is hisrecognition of the inherent ambiguity of Matthews portrayal; ratherthan attempting to force one over-riding tendency onto the crowds,he acknowledges that they are endued with both positive andnegative traits. Carter adopts a methodology based on audience-criticism, which, he claims, helps to approximate the reaction of theactual audience of the gospel to the portrayal of the crowds. Hedetermines that the crowds do not play simply one role, but a variety

60 Minear, Crowds, 35.61 Minear (Crowds, 42) is aware of possible objections and acknowledges the

hypothetical nature of his conclusions.62 Minear, Crowds, 31.63 Eduard Schweizer (Matthus und seine Gemeinde [SBS 71; Stuttgart: Verlag

Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974] 24#64) has grave reservations about Minears iden-tification: Noch fraglicher scheint mir die Parallelisierung der Volksmenge mit demGemeindegliedern im Unterschied zu den durch die Jnger abgebildetenLeitern...Dagegen spricht schon, dass die Volksmenge in 27,25 sich endgltig gegenJesus entscheidet.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4116

of roles. They are the objects of Jesus and later the disciples minis-try. The crowds recognize that God is in some way active in Jesus,but their response falls midway between the faith demonstrated bythe disciples and the antipathy characteristic of the Jewish leaders.Ultimately, the crowds lack of faith prevails when they join with theirleaders in assuming responsibility for Jesus death.64

Carter isolates two functions for this portrayal of the authorialaudience (and thereby the actual audience). Both are related to mis-sion. The first function is to provide a model for the mission charge ofthe audience. Like the disciples, the authorial audience are to teachand to heal, to serve the needy, and to demonstrate the mercy andcompassion of Jesus. The second function is didactic. The reactions ofthe crowds are designed to educate the audience about the realities ofmission. The crowds failure to understand Jesus indicates that themission enterprise is often beset by rejection. On the other hand, theopenness of the crowds to Jesus, especially when contrasted with theobduracy of their leaders, offers encouragement to the audience.65 Inshort, the authorial audience can expect a mixed reaction to its mes-sage. The ambivalence of the crowds corresponds to the situationconfronting the gospels audience: While the mission commandedby the risen Jesus would more often than not bring negativeresponses, the assurance was given that the task was not hopeless, thatthere would also be some positive response.66

One inevitable shortcoming of Carters paper is its brevity. Giventhe constraints imposed by the essay format, he is forced to paint witha broad brush and deals with some issues too summarily. A case inpoint is his treatment of the christological title Son of David. Heassumes without discussion that the audience knows that thecrowds designation of Jesus as the Son of David is inadequate, sincethe disciples only confess Jesus as the Son of God.67 His observa-tion overlooks the fact that Matthew himself sanctions the title Son ofDavid at the outset of the gospel (1:1). Surely, Carter does not meanto imply that the evangelist is himself an unreliable narrator.68

A more serious objection emerges from his conclusions. Is theentire portrayal of the crowds to be reduced to a paradigm for mis-

64 Carter, Crowds, 64.65 Carter, Crowds, 65.66 Carter, Crowds, 67.67 Carter, Crowds, 63. See also, idem, Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist

(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996) 194.68 On the concept of reliable narration, see Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction

(2nd Ed. Chicago: University Press, 1983) 169-209.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4117

sionary activity? While there is little doubt that Jesus serves as theprime exemplar for missionary service, and that his messageprovoked a variety of responses, are we to stop there? Cartersanalysis says nothing about the crowds from the perspective ofChristology or salvation history.69 What is to be made of the crowdsidentifications of Jesus? What of their (otherwise unprecedented)association with their leaders at 27:25? Why do the crowds, whousually appear favourably disposed toward Jesus, ultimately rejecthim? To say that the crowds simply demonstrate the maxim thatmany are called and few are chosen glosses over too many otherquestions. Carters solution, in other words, is too limited.70

F Anthony Saldarini

Anthony Saldarini does not offer a full-scale discussion of the crowds,but his viewpoint warrants consideration because of its distinctiveapproach. He furnishes elements of a historico-sociological assess-ment of the crowds, describing them as an incipient social move-ment which had not reached the level of differentiation required for asocial movement organization.71 That is to say, given the crowdsshifting and diffuse character, they lack the type of organizationtypical of coalitions, reform movements, or political interest groups.Instead, the crowds are sociologically typical of the lower classes inantiquity.72 These lower classes were constituted predominantly ofartisans and peasants. They were largely illiterate, without socialmobility and direct access to power, and because of these deficienciesthey were attracted to Jesus promises of reformed societal relation-ships.73

Unlike some of the authors mentioned above, Saldarini does notconsider the crowds to be a distinctive unit. They are subgroups ofIsrael, a fact that helps to explain their differing dispositions to Jesus.While they are generally welcoming, certain crowds are marked bytheir antipathy, such as the crowd that arrests Jesus and the one that

69 By salvation-history, I mean a schematic understanding of Gods dealingswith men that emphasizes continuity-yet-difference. The definition is that of John P.Meier (Law and History in Matthews Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt 5:17-48 [AnBib 71;Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976] 22).

70 It is rather telling that in Carters substantial book (Matthew) he hardly hasoccasion to mention the crowds, even though a quarter of the book (Chapters 13-16)is dedicated to Matthews characters.

71 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 39.72 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 38.73 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 38-39.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4118

condemns him in the Passion Account.74 In a later essay, however,Saldarini describes Matthews treatment of the crowds as consistentand refers to the crowds as if they were more of a distinctive entity(although this difference may simply be a question of emphasis).There they are described as Jesus curious, confused, neutral, misledbut seldom hostile audience.75

Saldarini also grants the crowds a symbolic dimension. Thecrowds symbolize the Jewish community of his [Matthews] day,which he hoped to attract to his brand of Judaism.76 Hence,Saldarini would agree with Kingsbury against Van Tilborg andMinear that the crowds are transparent for Jews and not Christianbelievers. Matthews community continues to vie for the allegiance ofpotential Jewish converts.

Saldarinis treatment is most interesting, and the sociological tackhe adopts offers refreshing new insights. The chief difficulty with hisanalysis is its inconsistency. On the one hand, he appears to interpretthe crowds in light of the historical and sociological forces operativein Jesus day. It is not at all evident from his discussion whether thesociological portrait of the crowds he adduces is meant to apply to thecrowds surrounding the historical Jesus, whether it is a portrait ofMatthews crowds or whether he even intends to distinguish the twogroups.77 In any event, his approach suggests that he does not discernmuch material difference between the two. He implies thereby thatthe portrayal of the crowds is primarily historical and mimetic: that itoffers a window into the social forces and classes of the first centuryC.E.

As will become evident below, there are very good reasons for oneto assume that the depiction of the crowds is not historical and mi-metic. What makes Saldarinis position even more tenuous is that healso wants to argue that the crowds, when viewed transparently, aresymbolic for the Jewish community of Matthews day. This assump-tion appears undeniably problematic: the historical narrative is mi-metic, yet the transparent narrative is symbolic. Can he really haveit both ways? In addition, he further appears to suggest that thecrowds are groups at the historical level, but a single group at thetransparent level.

74 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 38.75 Saldarini, Boundaries, 244.76 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 38; idem, Boundaries, 244.77 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 38.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4119

G Summary

All told, therefore, the above studies emerge with a variety offundamental insights. They generally recognize that Matthew charac-terizes the crowds as a relatively distinct entity, and they have isolatedcertain typical features of that characterization. They also indicate,either explicitly, or implicitly, that the role of the crowd is relational,and deserves to be interpreted in light of the other groups in thegospel. Significantly, most of the studies agree that the crowds aretransparent, even if they offer little in the way of agreement about thecrowds precise identity. These insights are fundamental, and essen-tial to any further appreciation of the role of the crowds in Matthew.

On the other hand, much remains to be done. It is ironic thatthese more elaborate studies suffer from the same problems that affectthe cursory evaluations of the crowds mentioned above. Althoughthey provide more detail, they are still not detailed enough. Three ofthe studies are not even primarily concerned with the crowds.Kingsburys work examines the crowds in order to cast light onMatthew 13, Van Tilborgs book considers them to help place theJewish leaders, while Saldarini is concerned with situating Matthewscommunity. Only Minear and Carter confine themselves exclusivelyto the crowds, and their treatments are both just brief essays. Not oneof these works considers the utterances or actions of the crowds in anydepth, and in Kingsburys case especially, it has to be asked whetherhis understanding of Matthew 13 has not, perhaps, unduly colouredhis perception of the crowds.

The problems of the crowds identity and role in the gospel arealso accentuated by these studies. That the scholars discussed aboveemerge with no consensus about the identity or even the basicdisposition of the crowds is especially eloquent. So, too, is the factthat their explanations of the crowds anomalies are not entirelyconvincing. Kingsburys interpretation places all the emphasis onchapter 13 and (to a lesser degree) on the Passion Account, whilelargely discounting the rest of the gospels narrative. Van Tilborgsand Minears do precisely the reverse. Carters study does recognizethe essential ambiguity inherent in Matthews depiction of thecrowds, yet his emphasis on the crowds as a template for mission istoo reductive.

Finally, a number of the studies are too quick to dismiss the role ofthe crowds on the historical level, and begin to assess them in lightof Matthews contemporary situation. Kingsbury and Minear areparticularly prone to doing so, with neither of them providing anadequate rationale for his identification of the crowds. That the

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4120

former comes to identify the transparent crowds as obdurate Jewsand the latter as laymen of Matthews Community testifies to theproblems inherent in their method.78 John Meier has warned thatthere is...a danger in so stressing the second horizon of the churchspresent state that the horizon of the sacred past is forgotten.79 Hiscaveat is salutary. Given the prominence of the crowds in the gospelat the historical level, it is obvious that an adequate study of thecrowds needs to assess their significance within that framework. It isonly when their role at this historical or narrative level has beenthoroughly analyzed that it becomes appropriate to consider thecrowds in light of Matthews own situation, if, indeed, one can justlysuppose that there is a transparent level or second horizon.80

H Proposal

As was indicated above, this study proposes to undertake an analysisof the crowds identity, role, and function within the gospel. In doingso, it will allow some of the problems just outlined to help dictate itsoverall format. The above overview has demonstrated that one of themost pressing problems concerns the crowds identity. Since there isno consensus about the nature and ethnic identity of the oxloi inMatthew, the first section of this study (Chapters 2-4) sets out toidentify the crowds at the historical (or narrative) level. It willexamine whether it is warranted to consider the crowds as a distinc-tive entity within the gospel, and then move on to an appraisal oftheir ethnic identity. The final chapter of the section will consider therelation of the crowds to Israel as a whole.

The second and third sections will address the ambiguity orambivalence of the crowds role in the gospel.81 As this role canreadily be divided into favourable and unfavourable depictions,the first section (Chapters 5-8) will begin with the favourable

78 Nor is this, evidently, an uncommon means of proceeding. Gundry (Matthew, 8-9, cf. 64-65) simply informs his readers at the outset of his commentary that theJewish crowds symbolize the international church, including the many Gentiles whowere later to become disciples. J. C. Fenton (The Gospel of Saint Matthew [PelicanGospel Commentaries; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963] 74) does the same: thecrowds foreshadow the members of the Church whom Jesus will heal and teachthrough his disciples.

79 Meier, Law, 30#13. He is commenting on Minears study.80 These remarks tacitly assume that for the crowds there is a second horizon of

the churchs present state, an assumption that would not be held by some of thescholars mentioned above.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4121

portrayal. This is not quite so artificial a means of proceeding as itsounds, since, with the exception of the crowds involvement in Jesusarrest and trial, this includes virtually all of the actions, responses andstatements made by the crowds in the gospel.82 The second sectionwill begin, therefore, with an account of Jesus ministry to the crowds.The next two chapters will analyze their responses to his ministry,including a detailed account of the crowds following of Jesus. Thefinal chapter of the section will examine the significance of thecrowds use of the christological designation Son of David.

The third section (Chapters 9-11) will address the unfavourableportrayal of the crowds. It will begin with their description of Jesus asa prophet, and then move to an assessment of the crowds involve-ment in Jesus arrest and trial. The concluding chapter of the sectionwill consider the significance of Jesus condemnation of the crowds inthe Parable discourse (Matthew 13:1-52).

The final section of this work (Chapter 12) will deal with the issueof the crowds transparency in the gospel. Areas many of the schol-ars mentioned above would contendthe crowds transparent forsome post-Easter group? If they are, which group do they represent,and what is their role and function?

Taken together, these four sections will demonstrate that the evan-gelist uses the term oxloj (or oxloi) to refer to the Jewish people asdistinguished from their leaders. Matthews ambivalent depiction ulti-mately arises from his use of two contradictory biblical topoi to char-acterize the Jewish people in the gospel. On the one hand, he por-trays them as a flock, the lost sheep of the House of Israel, whoinstinctively receive the ministrations of Jesus, the Son of David. Assuch, they are needy and responsive to Jesus. On the other hand,Matthew also represents them as the obdurate people of God, whohave consistently rejected the prophets sent by him. In the end, Mat-thew has the crowds reject Jesus, the prophet from Galilee, and joinwith their leaders in putting him to death. Both of these topoi arefamiliar from the Hebrew Scriptures, and Matthew uses both to de-velop different facets of his gospel story. The paradox of the crowdsis, in Matthews view, the paradox of the Jewish people, and is

81 By role I mean in part the character which one assumes, though inestablishing the crowds role, I would follow Aristotles discussion of tragedy (Poetics,12-13), which emphasizes the primacy of actions over character within a narrative.This emphasis appears to hold true for the gospels as a whole.

82 The one notable exception is the crowds identification of Jesus as a prophet(21:11). Why it is included in the third section will be explained more fully in Chap-ter Nine.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4122

expressive of their ongoing ambivalence toward the God of Israel.This ambivalence evidently continues unchanged until Matthews

own day. He makes the historical crowds transparent for the Jewishpeople (as distinct from their leaders), and reveals that despite thechurchs ongoing mission the Jewish people have not yet accepted itsmessage. The work will go on to consider the function of the crowdsin the gospel, and offer some suggestions as to why Matthew mighthave chosen to portray them in such a fashion.

Taken as a whole, an appropriate understanding of the place ofthe crowds in Matthews gospel should provide a new point of depar-ture for (re-) assessing Matthews relation to Judaism, his Christology,and his Heilsgeschichte. The first of these issues is in particular need ofelucidation. Stanton has justly observed that for much of earlyChristianity, and for Matthew in particular, the relationship betweenChristianity and Judaism was the central problem for Christian theol-ogy.83 This study will help to establish how Matthew attempts toresolve the problem.

H Presuppositions and Methodology

The above analysis suggests the need for a method that will addressboth the historical and transparent levels of the gospel. Accordingly,the following examination will employ an eclectic methodology thatcombines elements of redaction criticism with insights derived fromnarrative criticism.84 This approach will treat some of the literaryfeatures of the gospel without discounting issues of the evangelistssources and the possibility of extra-textual referents.85 Given, how-

83 Stanton, New People, 168. See further Donald Hagner, The Sitz im Leben of theGospel of Matthew in David R. Bauer and Mark Allan Powell (eds.), Treasures Newand Old: Contributions to Matthean Studies [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996] 63), and, mostrecently, Donald Senior Between Two Worlds: Gentile and Jewish Christians inMatthews Gospel, CBQ 61 (1999) 1-23 and Douglas R. A. Hare, How Jewish Isthe Gospel of Matthew? CBQ 62 (2000) 264-77. Senior remarks that there is ascholarly consensus that Matthews interface with Judaismis the fundamental keyto determining the social context and theological perspective of this gospel (p. 5).

84 This approach is similar to that advocated by Ulrich Luz in The Theology of theGospel of Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1995) 1-10.

85 It goes without saying that Matthews crowds could be fruitfully approachedfrom a variety of other methodological points of view; see, for instance, the recentsocial-scientific examination by Jerome Neyrey (Honor and Shame in the Gospel ofMatthew [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998] 42-44), who shows how thecrowds are, among other things, utilized by the evangelist to enhance Jesus status:by brokering Gods benefactions to the people, Jesus has earned their respect andachieved great honour (p. 44).

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4123

ever, the increasing prominence of narrative criticism in recent gospelstudies and the fact that redaction criticism has come to be regardedin certain circles as a Sackgasse, it may justly be asked why redactioncriticism has not been dispensed with entirely in favour of narrativecriticism.86

One reason for not dispensing with redaction criticism is that itremains an essential tool for analyzing Matthew.87 The chief objec-tions to redaction criticism have been levelled against the methodsapplication to the Gospel of Mark.88 There, given the absence ofconcrete criteria for assessing the scope and character of Markseditorial activity, the method has indeed proved to be somethingof a dead end.89 An acceptance of the two-document hypothesis,however, does provide Matthean scholars with precisely these criteriafor Matthean studies. The methods continued effectiveness is attestedby the fact that, with a few exceptions, all of the recent commentarieson Matthew subscribe to the two-document hypothesis and make useof the insights afforded by redaction criticism.90 Given this practicalevidence for its viability, the method (with its implicit reliance on thetwo-document hypothesis) will be drawn upon here as well.

86 See John R. Donahue, Redaction Criticism: Has the Hauptstrasse become aSackgasse? in E. V. McKnight and E. Struthers Malbon (eds.), The New LiteraryCriticism and the New Testament (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1994) 27-57.

87 Graham Stanton, in a chapter entitled Redaction Criticism: the End of anEra? (A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992] 23-53), has stressed the viability and essential insights provided by redaction criticism.

88 Donahue, Hauptstrasse, 39-41.89 Though see the reservations by Franz Neirynck, Literary Criticism: Old and

New in Camille Focant (ed.), The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New LiteraryCriticism (BETL 110; Leuven: University Press, 1993) 36-7.

90 Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (The New American Commentary 22; Nashville:Broadman, 1992) 37-41; D. A. Carson, Matthew (The Expositors Bible Commentary;Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) 11-17; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., ACritical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 Vols. (ICC;Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997) I 97-127; (hereafter DA); David E. Gar-land, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (New York:Crossroad, 1993) 3-4; J. Gnilka, Das Matthusevangelium, 2 Vols. (HTKNT; Freiburg:Herder, 1986,1988) II 526; Donald Hagner, Matthew 1-13 and Matthew 14-28 (WBC33A-B; Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995) cf. Matthew 1-13, xlvi-xlviii); Douglas R. A. Hare,Matthew (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1993) 2; Daniel J. Harrington, TheGospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina I; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press/Michael Glazier,1991) 5-7; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 46-49; DonaldSenior, The Gospel of Matthew (Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon, 1997)22-24. One exception is Craig S. Keener (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999] 1-16), whose commentary is largely social-historical and rhetorical. Yet, even he draws on redaction criticism and the two-document hypothesis (pp. 2-3,13).

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4124

Just as clearly, however, it needs to be supplemented. Redactioncriticism has been faulted for promoting in its practitioners a failureto appreciate the artistic unity and integrity of the gospels, and theirliterary characteristics.91 This observation certainly holds true fortreatment of Matthews crowds. While they are major characterswithin the gospel, and their story one of its narrative threads,previous redaction-critical studies have very largely overlooked thesefactors, devoting inordinate attention instead to the question of thecrowds transparency. A consideration of the crowds from a narrativeand literary perspective, therefore, has much to offer.92

That being said, pure narrative criticism is in certain respects alsounsuited to the present examination. While the narrative-criticalmethod has proved invaluable in highlighting the story-line of thegospel, it tends to promote in its exponents an overvaluing of thenarrative quality of the gospel. A number of the recent narrative-critical studies devoted to Matthew appear to presuppose that thegospel is exclusively a narrative or story about Jesus,93 a story oftenregarded as generically akin to the ancient bios.94

Without doubt, the Gospel of Matthew does furnish a story ofJesus, and has very considerable points in common with the biosgenre.95 Yet, despite these areas of overlap, it is doubtful whetherMatthew is a bios (or narrative) pure and simple. The proportion of

91 Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 1-2.92 For narrative-critical approaches that discuss the crowds, see David R. Bauer,

The Major Characters of Matthews Story, Int 46 (1992) 363-65; Kingsbury,Matthew as Story, 24-25. By narrative I mean the representation of real or fictiveevents and situations in a time sequence. The definition is that of Gerald Prince,Narratology: The Form and Function of Narrative (Janua Linguarum 108; Berlin: Mouton,1982) 1.

93 See, for instance, D. J. Weaver (Matthews Missionary Discourse: A Literary CriticalAnalysis [ JSNTSup 38; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990] 23), who contends thatdownplaying the significance of the narrative frameworkdoes violence toMatthews own intentions. Her certainty about Matthews intentions begs thequestion of genre, and somewhat vitiates the findings of an otherwise valuable study.Cf., in addition, Margaret Davies, Matthew (Sheffield; JSOT Press, 1993) 1; Edwards,Portrait, 1; Howell, Matthews Inclusive Story, 249. Mark Allen Powell, What is NarrativeCriticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 44-50; Gary Yamasaki, John the Baptist in Lifeand Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism of Matthews Narrative ( JSNTSup 167; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 11.

94 Carter, Matthew, 46-8.95 Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman

Biography (SNTSMS 70; Cambridge: University Press, 1992); Philip Schuler, A Genrefor the Gospels: The Biographical Character of Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982);Graham Stanton, Matthew: bi/bloj, eu)agge/lion, or bi/oj? in F. Van Segbroeck et al.(eds.), The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck (BETL 100; Leuven: UniversityPress, 1992) Vol. 2 1187-1201.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4125

teaching to narrative in Matthew is so considerable that it necessarilycalls such a judgement into question. It is true that there are bioicontaining extended discoursesLucians Demonax and Plutarchs Lifeof Cato the Elder are often cited96yet, when one examines the propor-tion of teaching in Matthew and compares it to these ancient bioi,pronounced differences emerge. According to the figures provided byBurridge, 42.5%approaching halfof Matthew is made up ofJesus teaching.97 Demonax, by contrast, has less than half ofMatthews proportion of teaching19.7%, while the discourses inthe Life of Cato the Elder 7-9 are very limited indeed.98 These parallelsare not sufficient to suggest that the genre of Matthew is the biosalone; rather, it is preferable to recognize that the gospel is a com-posite genre, part bios and part didach.99 If, however, Matthew is acomposite genre of this kind, including significant non-narrativeelements, the applicability of narrative-criticism to the gospel as awhole is compromised.100

This problem can be seen in the difficulties that narrative-criticalstudies have often had in fully incorporating the Matthean dis-courses.101 Matthew, unlike Luke, has highlighted Jesus teaching byassembling discourses instead of simply interspersing Jesus teachingthroughout the gospel.102 Yet, given their prominence31.5% of thegospel, according to Burridges estimate103the discourses have beenproportionally undervalued by some narrative critics.104 Stanton

96 Stanton, bi/oj, 1201.97 Burridge, Gospels, 272. Burridge provides the following percentages for the other

gospels: Luke is 36.8% teaching, John 34% and Mark 20.2% (pp. 271,273-4).98 Burridge, Gospels, 270.99 Dale C. Allison (Matthew: Structure, Biographical Impulse and the Imitatio

Christi in Van Segbroeck et al., The Four Gospels, 1209) has noted that Matthew isseveral things at once: it mixes genres. But included in that mixtureis biography.

100 This issue is especially pertinent to our study, as the Parable discourse hasconsiderable bearing on the place of the crowds. See below Chapter Eleven.

101 Stanton,bi/oj, 1201#58.102 John Riches (Matthew [New Testament Guides; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1996] 35) remarks: it seems strange to suggest that Matthew is exalting narra-tive over discourse, when he has taken such care in the construction of his majordiscourse sections (italics his).

103 Burridge, Gospels, 197.104 Christopher R. Smith (Literary Evidences of a Fivefold Structure in the Gospel

of Matthew, NTS 43 (1997) 540-51) and Janice Capel Anderson (Matthew: Sermonand Story in Bauer and Powell, Treasures, 233-50) are notable exceptions. Smithremarks that if Matthew is most obviously a story, it is a rather dull one for severallong stretches, while the disciples basically sit around while Jesus talks (p. 541). Thebook by Warren Carter and John Paul HeilMatthews Parables: Audience-OrientedPerspectives (CBQMS 30; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America,1998)also attempts to integrate the discourse material.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4126

complained of this neglect almost a decade ago, and the situation hasbeen slow to change.105

Finally, the focus of the present study moves beyond the ambit ofnarrative criticism. As the above survey has indicated, much of thescholarly interest in the crowds has concentrated on their transparentrole in the gospelhow the crowds cast light on the evangelists owncircumstances. Yet, as Carter has recently explained, narrativecriticism does not address the question of extra-textual figures.106Because the final section of this study will address the question of thetransparent crowds, it is necessary to employ a method that allows forthe possibility of extra-textual figures. Here an approach that is notbased on narrative criticism commends itself.

For these reasons, an eclectic method makes good sense. The oneoutlined above should prove effective for an analysis of Matthewscrowds, while avoiding some of the pitfalls associated with usingeither redaction or narrative criticism in isolation.

105 Stanton (bi/oj, 1201#58). For a penetrating assessment of the limitations ofnarrative criticism, see John Ashton, Studying John. Approaches to the Fourth Gospel (Ox-ford: Clarendon Press, 1994) 141-165.

106 W. Carter, Narrative/Literary Approaches to Matthean Theology: The Reignof the Heavens as an Example (Mt. 4.17-5.12), JSNT 67 (1997) 8; cf. Howell,Matthews Inclusive Story, 250.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4127

PART II

THE IDENTITY OF THE CROWDS

Given the very divergent approaches that have been taken toward thecrowds in the first gospel, it is imperative that they be examinedafresh. The following three chapters, therefore, set out to examinetheir identity in considerable detail. Chapter Two considers whetherit is warranted to regard the crowds as a distinctive entity within thegospel. Chapter Three investigates the ethnic identity of the crowds,while Chapter Four examines the relation of the crowds to the peopleof Israel.

Cousland 02 versie 3 08-10-2001, 11:4129

CHAPTER TWO

A Matthews Sources

As the last chapter made evident, one of the most fundamental ques-tions concerning the crowds in Matthew is their identity. Before thiscan be established, however, it needs to be asked whether such anenterprise can even be undertaken. While the studies by Minear andthe scholars mentioned above do seem to suggest that the crowdsrepresented a distinctive entity within the gospel, it is safe to saythat the issue would profit from a more concerted examination.1Accordingly, the first part of this chapter will begin with a discussionof Matthews terminology for the crowds. It will then present adetailed evaluation of Matthews descriptions of, and ascriptions to,the crowds in his gospel. The second part of the chapter will considerthese changes in more detail to ascertain the distinctive features of theMatthean portrayal of the crowds.

Before doing either, however, it is necessary to address thequestion of Matthews sources. Where does Matthew come by hisreferences to the oxloj or oxloi?2 Do they occur in his sources, and, ifso, which ones?

The word oxloj itself occurs more frequently in Matthew than ineither Mark or Luke.3 Matthew appears to have drawn at least two of

1 Minear (Crowds, 35), for instance, actually posits two crowds, since he isunwilling to identify the crowds of the Passion Narrative with the crowds of Jesuspublic ministry.

2 As oxloj is, by far, Matthews preferred designation for the crowds, this discus-sion will begin with it, and consider the question of related terms below.

3 Matthew50, Mark38, Luke41. See Kurt Aland et al. (eds.), VollstndigeKonkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen Testament, Band II Spezialbersichten (Berlin: Walter deGruyter, 1978) s.v. Robert Morgenthaler (Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes [3.Auf.; Zrich: Gotthelf Verlag, 1982] 127), by contrast, emerges with only 49references, probably because he omits 12:15,

j. r. c. cousland the crowds in the gospel of matthew supplements to novum testamentum supplements...

Documents